Politician-industrialist
Cecil Rhodes once reasoned “the press owns the minds of the people.”
He was not alone in that belief. Journalist, playwright, and essayist
Arthur S. Miller pinpointed “a pervasive system of thought control”
in the United States—this, by “employment of the mass media”
coupled with “the system of public education.” Both, he
added, tell people what to think about.[1]

In an op-ed piece
about the role of the Council on Foreign Relations media members, Washington
Post ombudsman Richard Harwood once characterized their membership as
“an acknowledgement of ascension into the American ruling class.”
These are not restricted to mere analysis and interpretation; they “help
make” foreign policy.[2]

Left or Right?

In December of
2004 the Associated Press News Service referenced former PBS journalist
Bill Moyer for his indictment of “an ideological press that’s
interested in the election of Republicans.” Though likeable and
highly regarded, Moyer overlooks that reporters, writers, and others
in the media vote overwhelmingly for liberal Democrats; and a substantial
majority is “pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-separation of church
and state, pro-feminism, pro-affirmative action, and supportive of gay
rights”—all left-centric and globalism friendly.[3]
Even Peter Jennings acknowledges that for many years the media has been
more of a liberal persuasion.[4]

Hard or
Soft News?

On one segment
of Bill Moyer’s Journal, Moyer admitted to ending each day with
Comedy Central’s The Daily Show. Whereas comedian-host Jon Stewart
boasts of “faking the news,” Moyer credits him for delivering
real news with extraordinary impact. Increasingly, young people look
to Stewart for hard news; older fans lap up Stewart’s infectious
satire. Admittedly, he’s tickled my funny bone more than once.

The Colbert Report
is a spin-off and counterpart of The Daily Show. Both critique and satirize
personality-driven politics. The fictional Stephen Colbert is portrayed
as a fact-averse, self-aggrandizing anchorman. In my view, many segments
of The Colbert Report are downright hilarious; still, Colbert’s
character is a hyper-patriotic, theologically bereft, right-wing egomaniac
feigning to hate liberals.

In reality Colbert
is a registered Democrat. Problem is The Report all too often is embraced
as non-satirical journalism. Even the reputable dictionary publisher
Merriam-Webster named as its 2006 “Word of the Year” a term
Colbert coined (“truthiness”).[5]

Media Nannies

Neither Ann Coulter
nor Michael Moore ranks high on the “nicey-nice” scale.
But it’s the former who took a pie in the face—literally!
Moreover, media elitists criticized over forty citations within Coulter’s
book, Slander. The upshot of Coulter’s treachery, they reasoned,
is that “casual” readers are certain to be misled by her
scathing accusation of liberal bias and unfair representation of conservatism
in the mainstream media.

Presuming the American
public to be inept at analysis, media nannies work hard to protect dimwits
from the likes of Coulter. At the same time, true-to-form liberal bastions
as The New York Times and the Washington Post praise Michael Moore for
his sharp “populist instincts” and “admirable forbearance.”[6]

Key Omissions
by Design

In 1990 when the
World Federalist Association faulted the American press for being slow
at grasping most global developments, the WFA failed to reveal that,
more likely than not, key omissions were by design.[7]

Just ask David
Rockefeller. At a Bilderberg Society meeting in Baden, Germany, he thanked
attendees from the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine,
and other distinguished publications. For nearly forty years, he gushed,
these friends of global governance had “respected their promises
of discretion.” Now that the world was adequately primed to welcome
a new world order and the cat was out of the bag, globalists were free
to go public. This, too, was by design.[8]

Globalism:
Evangelized in State Schools

In 1983 the Education
Department issued a broadly circulated report, A Nation at Risk. “If
an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose upon Americans the
mediocre educational performance that exists today,” it cautioned,
“we might well have viewed it as an act of war.” And so
we should. This stunning declaration fittingly shook the education establishment
to its core.[9]

Conveniently, the
traditional family took the fall when, according to columnist John Steinbacher,
Dr. Chester Pierce of Harvard University suggested that every child
in America entering school at the age of five is “mentally ill.”
Educators must make these “sick” children well by creating
and nurturing “the international child of the future.” Over
time, social engineering to reverse pesky behavior patterns picked up
at home, in churches, and in synagogues was coupled with systematic
legal drugging of millions of youngsters.[10]

Therapeutic
Restructuring

Today, millions
of school-aged children are chemically restrained with psychotropic
drugs for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD), or Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) in children
five years of age and younger.

Systematic drugging
is turning millions of school-aged children into patients. Consequently,
Title I programs fund a flood of psychiatrists, psychologists, social
workers, and the like to address any languishing self-esteem arguably
resulting from colossal failure of the state school system. By the mid-1990s,
child psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, and special educators
in and around U.S. public schools nearly outnumbered teachers, popularly
known today as “change agents.”

The fitting question
arises, “Have too many children been labeled and subsequently
medicated?” A December 1999 report by the surgeon general revealed
that an alleged twenty percent of American children suffer from “psychiatric
disorders.”

In a lengthy, well-researched
paper, Dr. Fred A. Baughman, Jr., suggests that few, if any, questions
can be addressed properly without an honest answer to this: “Is
ADHD a disease with a confirmatory physical (including chemical) abnormality,
or isn’t it?”

The good doctor
agrees with his colleagues that some three decades of research have
offered no definitive answer for warranting the medication of one in
five American youngsters.[11]

It can be argued
that widespread drugging serves the unfolding global agenda by fostering
subdued compliance.

With Big Brother
wrestling the family reins from parental grasp, Mom and Dad eventually
forfeit power to exercise their God-given authority. If ratified, the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) could prosecute parents
who deny their own children access to violent movies, music, videos,
or computer games.[13]

That the focus
has shifted dramatically from home to state schools and from academics
to emotional health begs the question, “How is this working?”
Apparently, not well. Whistle blower Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt uncovered
the mother lode, armed herself with it, and then fled the U.S. Department
of Education for which she had served as senior official.[14]

Grooming
Human Resources for Cosmic Citizenship

In December 1980,
the UN General Assembly formulated The United Nations Global Education
Project as a model for global education and course for teacher training
and curriculum development of all nations. The project is based on New
Age mystic Dr. Robert Müller’s UNESCO prize-winning, holistic
World Core Curriculum.[15]

Theosophist Dr.
Shirley McCune offers her own prescription for “sick” children—that
being a “quantum leap” to higher, group (or collaborative)
consciousness. In a speech she gave at the 1989 Kansas Governor’s
Conference on Education, Dr. McCune disclosed “we no longer see
the teaching of facts and information as the primary outcome of education.”

Instead, she added,
we look to a “total transformation of our society.”[16]

In Creating the
Future, edited by Dee Dickinson, Dr. McCune proposes the direction of
desired change toward universal societal transformation—namely,
“moving out of the business of schooling and into the business
of human resource development.”[17]

Apparently McCune
embraces the cradle-to-grave vision for lifelong learning as conceived
by Marc Tucker and former First Lady Hillary Clinton. Increasingly,
world citizens are viewed as mere human resources to be groomed and
fitted in the global economy as workers, not thinkers; followers, not
leaders; group members, not individuals

“The
Possibilities Mind”

Longtime colleagues
and friends Drs. Shirley McCune, Andrew Griffin, and Robert Carkhuff
share interest in the disturbingly esoteric study of the paranormal
and human potential. See for yourself in The Light Shall Set You Free[18]
and The Possibilities Mind[19] by Drs. McCune
and Carkhuff, respectively.

In pursuit of transpersonal
psychology, Dr. Carkhuff applies his own make-believe formula (Energy=PE²1³)
to measure human energy toward self-actualization, clarified by McCune
as looking to “the Light within” in our collective journey.
Cosmic mindfulness is entered into through altered states of consciousness.
The way to that “Light,” McCune claims, is to increase one’s
“vibration frequency.”

Sounds to me like
a spiritual experience. True, Dr. McCune has the constitutional right
to believe as she does; however, the “path to power,” in
her view, “requires a whole new curriculum and set of guidelines.”
Don’t think for a moment that this federal liaison refrains from
exposing children to her arcane theological grid.[20]

Be sure the utopian
brave new world of infinite possibilities, purportedly achieved by Carkhuff’s
Links Project, costs taxpayers millions of dollars in federal grants,
yet he identifies “the possibilities mind” as god—yes,
god—who allegedly co-processes with us to illuminate mysteries.[21]

If this isn’t
weird enough, “the possibilities mind” discards what is
dubbed dysfunctional traditional math for “constructivist learning.”
Forget numerals. Students are required not to solve a problem with its
correct answer, but rather to use their “team voices” to
“think about mathematics” and how it makes them feel. Carkhuff
advances a similarly troublesome new science of possibilities.[22]

Conclusion:
Revolution-Ready Evangelists of the System

For progressive
liberals to unhinge the establishment in the name of egalitarianism,
student-led reform is called to bat. Founded by Adam Fletcher in April
2000, the left-wing Free Child Project promotes radical democracy toward
achieving a more fair, sustainable, and peaceful world. A youth-driven
training ground, the project serves as think tank and advocacy group,
especially for minority races, gays, women, and animals.

Hard-core direct
action propelled by “a spirit of resistance” frequently
involves civil disobedience, boycotts, and occupation. Says the late
Redwood Forest tree-sitting anarchist, the late Anita Roddick, this
is “the rent we pay to live on the planet.”[24]

Daughter of an
Army Colonel, Debra graduated with distinction from the University of
Iowa. She then completed a Master of Education degree from the University
of Washington. These were followed by Bachelor of Theology and Master
of Ministries degrees-both from Pacific School of Theology.

While a teacher
in Kuwait, Debra undertook a three-month journey from the Persian Gulf
to London by means of VW "bug"! One summer, she tutored the daughter of
Kuwait's Head of Parliament while serving as superintendent of Kuwait's
first Vacation Bible School.

Having authored
the ABCs of Globalism and ABCs
of Cultural -Isms, Debra speaks to Christian and secular groups alike.
Her radio spots air globally. Presently, Debra co-hosts WOMANTalk
radio with Sharon Hughes and Friends, and she contributes monthly commentaries
to Changing Worldviews and NewsWithViews.com. Debra calls the Pacific
Northwest home.

In 1983 the Education
Department issued a broadly circulated report, A Nation at Risk. “If
an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose upon Americans the
mediocre educational performance that exists today,” it cautioned,
“we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”